Duly Noted - Why?

By George Handlery, on March 1st, 2014

Simple questions might demand difficult answers.

This writer became politically aware when the fifties dawned. Condemned to live in the Hungarian cell of Socialism’s Soviet empire, the “why” was reoccurring in the conversation of the adults. Given the colonial status, the descent into poverty and the lost hopes for a new era after the Axis’ defeat, the phrase is understandable.

There were things that no one could fathom. A bit later, Stalin’s death saved us, at the outset of the greatest of his purges. When we waited with a bag under our pillow for our anticipated transport to liquidation, no one really understood. That “why” came not from wanting to know why those things were done to us. Much rather, no one could understand why “the Americans” would allow the system that marked us for extermination to push them around. Regardless of its brutality toward its subjects, to us the weaknesses of the USSR were obvious.

Beyond that non-use of America’s long nuclear monopoly, there are numerous other “incomprehensible” actions by advanced democracies. Remember: The non-use of power can be just as much an abuse as is its overuse.

Recently, in Korea, there has been another selective reunification of families torn apart by the 1950s war. The world has accepted the great power-like posturing of that midget-led bankrupt state. Therefore, illogically no one asks why such meetings are held within the Communist state. Why have old people visiting aged relatives in a bona fide concentration camp, needed to pay for the self-evident in hard currency? Why is an offer not made to organize the encounter in the ROK? The refusal by those that fear that even their cockroaches would leave it if they could, might refuse. Think of what great ammunition to unmask the already bare that would be!

Mainly, why does this writer think that further evidence regarding Korea’s prison state could enhance its despicable reputation?

The use of some popular terms makes the irreverent observer wonder why the obfuscation is not exposed. Challenged elites say “populist” to disqualify their disliked questioners. These movements emerge by working from a popular base upward and not from the enlightened leadership downward. The real threat of “populists” is that they are democratic. It is disturbing that populists like to ask “why” when faced by problems that PC orders us not to notice; problems such as criminal asylum seekers, welfare chiselers, or about useless projects to save inept “cousins” from unemployment.

It is obvious that why it is a sacrilege to ask, why anything that is popular, and therefore not a creation of the political class, needs to be written-off as populism. Dare to ask why the image is wrong that the elites are commanders without troops while the populists marshal mass armies with no field marshals. Why is whatever that gets a majority bad if it reduces the power of leaders?

Why are so many of us reluctant to admit such points: Iran claims it does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Ignoring the Mullahs’ unsavory past, we might accept that promise. However, by its own admission, Iran is building rockets with an extended reach. The purpose of such missiles is not conventional-tactical. As strategic delivery systems, they only make sense if they carry a strategic weapon, which is a nuclear bomb. Therefore, one of these pretensions is incorrect. No need to ask which it is.

We stay with the subject and a hard-to-explain procedure. The UN agency to control nuclear arms is the target. Even the well-meaning investigators sent to Iran have encountered disturbing facts. Why did we not find out? Here is the response. “Such a report – to have been prepared last year – would almost certainly have angered Iran and complicated efforts to settle a decade-old dispute over its atomic aspirations; moves which accelerated after President Rouhani took office. Why should Average Joe not think that putting his security into the hands of the IAEA equals Russian roulette with all chambers loaded? If findings that contradict official promises and minimal standards of the international community need to be withheld, so as not to anger the violator then, you wonder why you the investigators should be trusted.

Why do so many of us pretend to be fooled consistently? They kowtow before the throne of PC attempts to escape reality on the verbal level. People in Europe tend to talk about “Romanians” and “Bulgarians” when they discuss the problems of migration. All know that in most cases “Gypsies” are the subject. That word is as fitting as it is unmentionable. Why, in the name of fairness, should all Bulgarians and Romanians bear the consequences of a reputation they have not caused raises a “why” that seeks an honest answer.

The reluctance not to question fibs is not an innocent game. The practice has victims and a price. However, the habit is so entrenched that a seminal document of Western Civilization should be rephrased to fit the delusion. So the updated version might be; “We resolutely hold these half truths to be, by mutual consent, to be sufficiently plausible to hold them until a renewed version is imposed”.

The US has a bad habit regarding its representation abroad. The falsely portrayed citizen is unaware of this and of the damage caused. Washington likes to appoint strange people as ambassadors to nations that are told that they are dispensable. As an undergraduate, one heard that capitals, such as London and Paris, are too expensive for appointees that need to survive on their salary. Even retroactively, this is convincing. Wealthy and properly educated individuals can effectively man some outposts. Indeed, such persons might create good will by indicating through their qualifications that the country is important.

There is one thing that does not follow from this practice. To ship abroad those uneducated who are only distinguished as writers of fat checks covering the campaign costs of a President. While thanks are warranted, there is no reason why this is to be done by sending ignoramuses to innocent countries. Why not?

Even small and at first sight insignificant states can become crucial through an unexpected crisis. Switzerland, “professionally” neutral, thus a tested mediator between conflict parties, has often received high quality US personnel, such as Allen Dulles. At one point, the Ambassador in Hungary played a significant role. The man in Kiev is a key player. One could continue. For some reason Norway is getting a representative that does not know the country’s form of government. The designated ambassador to Hungary knows nothing about the place. In this case, the ignorance is so vast that the lady is accepting the unevaluated word of the discredited Socialists as guidance. The good thing about these questionable assignments is that they are now being criticized within America.

Why is it that more anti-Western a person or a movement, the greater will become the inclination to ignore that evidence? At the same time, the effort to pacify through undeserved concessions will grow. Just ask the Mullahs. Apparently, the greater the appetite to bite the feeding hand, the greater the inclination to give “more hand” to the beast on its way towards vegetarianism.

Is the conclusion from a long list of comparable inconsistencies that civilizations do not fall because of their foe’s efforts but due to their internal imbalance?

If so, we are left with good reason not only to ask that “why” but also to do so loudly and insistently.